Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

In the face of record-breaking inflation, another COVID surge, a disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal, rising crime, and supply scarcity, the Democrat Party has decided to make a few hours of rioting at the U.S. Capitol its entire campaign platform, while ignoring months of riots that sent cities and small businesses up in flames from coast to coast.

Rioting in all its forms should be condemned, but the lefts bald willingness to overlook its own while targeting private citizens for peaceful protests that occurred independently from the events on Capitol Hill last January just makes its hysteria over Jan. 6 look desperate. Breaking into the Capitol was wrong, but it was not 9/11, the people involved are still entitled to the Fifth Amendment, and screaming threat to democracy! is not enough to rescue fumbling Democrats in the 2022 midterms.

If you dont think Democrats in government and the media are exaggerating when they call the unrest at the Capitol the biggest threat to democracy ever, here are five other things they insisted would bring down our system of governance.

When an elected majority in the U.S. Senate, including West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, determined not to pass President Joe Bidens Build Back Bankrupt plan, the left erupted in cries that this act of democratic governance was, in fact, threatening democracy itself.

Manchin is killing the Biden legislative agenda, and perhaps the future of American democracy too, tweeted MSNBCs Mehdi Hasan.

If Manchin is no on both BBB and voting, Biden is done. Democracy is hanging by a thread, observed Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post. The Daily Beasts Wajahat Ali pined that Manchins decision not to vote for Bidens agenda reflects the need for massive structural reform and change. In its absence were a shell of a democracy.

The GOP Is a Grave Threat to American Democracy, ran a serious headline at The Atlantic in April.

Americans must get serious about fighting the Republican threat to our democracy, blared another headline in the Chicago Sun-Times, adding the party has become a corrupt force spouting violent rhetoric and plotting to overthrow our democracy.

Its not your grandfathers Republican Party now, unless your grandfather was a fascist, the pretentious subhead warns. The GOP is dangerous, and we must take action to make sure our children live in a free country.

The GOP has proven to be an even greater threat to US democracy than Trump in 2021, experts warn, said a headline from Insider, as if the allusion to experts blessed the piece with scientific objectivity.

We all know about the letter from the National School Boards Association to Attorney General Merrick Garlands Department of Justice smearing concerned parents of schoolchildren as domestic terrorists. The NSBA letter begged the DOJ to use domestic terrorism laws to go after parents who showed up to school board meetings to protest critical race theory, masking kids, and even rape in school bathrooms.

In response, Garland issued a directive to federal law enforcement and attorneys to address a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff who participate in the vital work of running our nations public schools.

An op-ed in the Mercury News said it even more bluntly: Attacks on school boards are a threat to democracy.

New York Magazines Eric Levitz threatened last month that If the Courts right-wing majority finds that it can continually push the boundaries of conservative judicial activism without undermining its own popular legitimacy, then the consequences for progressivism and popular democracy could be dire.

Two-thirds of the justices have now been appointed by a party thats won the most votes just once in the last eight presidential elections. The very existence of a court thats both so powerful and so far out of step with public opinion undermines the democratic values on which our system rests, added Brennan Center fellow Zachary Roth.

The bicameral design of our legislative branch, set up in Article I, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution to ensure that Americans were represented based on both population size and state interests, is a threat, according to some unhinged predictions from the left.

The Electoral College, another institution hated by the left when it contradicts their desires, poses a smaller long-term threat to American democracy than the Senate, urged a Vox article, because the Senate undermines principles of equal democratic representation.

The Senate will continue to give small states, which tend to be rural and conservative, far more clout than their size deserves. Thats not just a problem for democracy in the abstract, the Brennan Centers Roth continues.

He goes on to indicate his real, politically-motivated problem with the founders design: Because these states are more likely to support Republicans, it gives the GOP a built-in advantage, and makes it all but impossible to achieve large-scale progressive outcomes in Washington, even those that are popular. Nevermind the fact that the 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, already gave popular voters more control over the election of senators compared to the founders intended design.

So next time you hear a politician or pundit try to tell you that a few inexcusable hours of unruly behavior comprised the biggest threat to democracy in the nations history, remember theyre using similar language to condemn parents, political parties, our judicial branch of government, one of our two houses of Congress, and the very system in which an elected majority votes on proposed legislation. If you think the Jan. 6 rioters are the only target they want to destroy, you havent been paying attention.

Elle Reynolds is an assistant editor at The Federalist, and received her B.A. in government from Patrick Henry College with a minor in journalism. You can follow her work on Twitter at @_etreynolds.

More:
5 Things The Left Also Called A 'Threat To Democracy,' Such As Voting - The Federalist

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., defended federal involvement in elections, citing Alexander Hamilton while claiming election loss "cannot be left up to the states."

This week marked one year since the Jan. 6 Capitol riot that occurred on the day that Congress set to certify President Bidens win in the 2020 election over former President Donald Trump. The controversy around the post-election days focused on Trumps efforts to challenge election losses in key states, including Georgia where State Secretary Brad Raffensperger famously rebuffed the then-presidents effort to find more votes.

The dispute revived a long-standing argument over the role of federal officials in elections that some believe should remain entirely under the control of local and state officials.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn, chairman of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, speaks during a hearing in Washington on Sept. 23, 2020. (Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

But Clyburn believes that federal officials know exactly what they are doing, and they should retain their roles in such elections.

GAME ON BETWEEN BIDEN AND TRUMP AS PRESIDENT APPEARS TO GIVE FIRST SPEECH OF THE 2024 WHITE HOUSE RACE

"I am a federal official, but I understand very well how federal elections are run," Clyburn argued on "Fox News Sunday." "Most people who are now serving at the federal level have at one time served in some capacity at the state and local levels as well, so they too have an understanding."

Sen. Rand Paul speaks on the floor of the U.S. Senate on May 20, 2015, at the Capitol. (Senate TV via AP)

He echoed Alexander Hamilton that such elections "cannot" and "should not be left up to the states."

SUNDAY PANEL DISCUSSES MOVING ON FROM JAN. 6, PUTTING COUNTRY AHEAD OF PARTY

"Thats why states were not allowed to put term limits on federal officials, so the elections were not solely conducted by the states," he explained. "Thats why the voting rights act was necessary and thats why the fifth amendment to the constitution, why the 18th amendment to the constitution are necessary all because it had to go beyond the states to determine."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell speaks to reporters after a Republican strategy meeting at the Capitol on Oct. 19, 2021. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

The Jan. 6 anniversary also occurred as Senate Democrats have made a renewed push to reform voting rights reforms, including a change to the filibuster in order to pass the reforms.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., called it a "jaw-dropping" effort to "break the Senate."

RON JOHNSON REVEALS EXACTLY WHY HE BROKE HIS TWO-TERM PLEDGE

Clyburn argued that Congress needs to "mature" with the times and make changes where necessary.

"What is true today was not true then, and therefore the kind of changes that we need to make, the kind of modifications that we need to make must fit the times," Clyburn said.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"Just because youve got one little nugget that was true back in 1876 doesnt meant that that is true in 1976 This country has matured," he added. "This is not the same country it was over 200 years ago. We as a people must mature right along with it."

See the rest here:
James Clyburn defends federal takeover of elections: 'Cannot be left up to the states' - Fox News

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection which occurred a year ago this week is reportedly planning televised hearings in the coming months to share what its learned from the over 300 witnesses and tens of thousands of documents consulted thus far. Rep. Liz CheneyElizabeth (Liz) Lynn CheneyFox News tops ratings for coverage on Jan. 6 anniversary events Sunday shows preview: Congress marks Jan. 6 anniversary; US, Russia to hold talks amid rising tensions US sees image tarnished abroad post-Jan. 6 MORE (R-Wyo.) herself an experienced lawyer and vice chair of the committee has signaled that evidence is mounting that former President Donald TrumpDonald TrumpFox News tops ratings for coverage on Jan. 6 anniversary events Sunday shows preview: Congress marks Jan. 6 anniversary; US, Russia to hold talks amid rising tensions Democrats must close the perception gap MORE might be guilty of obstruction of an official proceeding, which is a federal felony that can trigger up to 20 years in prison.

Theres no established legal or historical path from a congressional investigation to a criminal trial of a former president and for good reason. Presidents are special, and they enjoy numerous special privileges of the office. During the Trump years, debate swirled around the concept of executive privilege, and whether his status as president would immunize him from liability for actions taken both before and during his presidency. As the work of the select committee heats up, executive privilege could again loom large as has already been the case with the snubbing of subpoenas by former Trump adviser Steve BannonSteve BannonGaetz on Jan. 6: 'We're ashamed of nothing' 'Daily Show' installs 'Heroes of the Freedomsurrection' Jan. 6 monument Garland vows prosecutions 'at any level' over Jan. 6 MORE and chief of staff Mark MeadowsMark MeadowsFox News tops ratings for coverage on Jan. 6 anniversary events Meadows asks Supreme Court for 'prompt' answer on Trump Jan. 6 lawsuit Jan. 6 and the GOP's masterclass in the emptiness of words MORE.

Here are five reasons why an attempt by Trump to hide behind executive privilege regarding Jan. 6 should probably fail.

1. President Joe BidenJoe BidenAre we investing trillions on what matters? Biden eulogizes Reid as a fighter 'for the America we all love' at memorial service Fox News tops ratings for coverage on Jan. 6 anniversary events MOREs decision not to invoke executive privilege on Trumps behalf is likely fatal to any competing claim by Trump. With respect to the protection of military and state secrets, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1953 stated in United States v. Reynolds that the privilege belongs to the Government, and must be asserted by it; it can neither be claimed nor waived by a private party (which is Trumps status now). It is not to be lightly invoked, the court explained. There must be a formal claim of privilege, lodged by the head of the department which has control over the matter, after actual personal consideration by that officer. No such formal claim has been lodged by Biden or Trump, for that matter in connection with Jan. 6.

Trump did initiate litigation over whether his assertion of executive privilege would supersede Bidens contrary decision under the Presidential Records Act for purposes of determining whether the select committee sees archived White House documents. But Trump roundly lost that bid in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Even if he succeeds in persuading the Supreme Court to take and reverse that case, a favorable ruling regarding archived records under the language of the Presidential Records Act would not necessarily protect Trump from a congressional or judicial subpoena for testimony. Theres only one president at a time under the Constitution, and in this moment, its Biden.

2. Executive privilege does not offer blanket immunity from legal process. Like the attorney-client privilege, executive privilege does not operate to immunize an individual from having to provide any and all testimony or records pursuant to a lawful subpoena. It only allows a recipients lawyer, during an interview, to lodge objections question-by-question and direct the witness not to answer those questions that call for privileged information. Former President Bill ClintonWilliam (Bill) Jefferson ClintonJamal Simmons to be named Harris communications director Jan. 6: Five reasons Trump cannot hide behind executive privilege To save America, we need a council of presidents MORE testified in the Monica Lewinsky investigation under Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, for example, even though he was the sitting president of the United States.

In this way, executive privilege is not unlike the much weightier Fifth Amendment ban on self-incrimination, which likewise anticipates that witnesses will show up for testimony and answer certain questions by invoking the Fifth rather than authorizing a blanket refusal to appear altogether. This is precisely why the Justice Department saw fit to indict Steve Bannon for contempt of Congress. He refused even to appear before the committee on grounds of executive privilege, which was not his right even if it had been formally invoked by the president.

3. Executive privilege did not protect President Richard Nixon from having to produce his Oval Office tapes in response to a subpoena on the theory that the public interest in knowing the truth outweighed his interest in secrecy. Information bearing on a bloody insurrection hardly warrants greater protection than the Watergate tapes that led to the untimely end of Nixons term in office. In United States v. Nixon, a unanimous Supreme Court explained in 1974: Neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the generalized need for confidentiality at high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.

In short, executive privilege can be outweighed by other public interests and Congresss interest in investigating Jan. 6 may be one of them.

Indeed, in its 2020 decision in Trump v. Mazars, even the modern conservative-leaning court refused to extend executive privilege beyond its existing boundaries to protect Trumps private financial records from disclosure to a grand jury. This round, Trump shouldnt get greater protections than Nixon did, either.

4. Even if executive privilege applied to Trumps communications around Jan. 6, it may have already been waived. There arent a lot of cases discussing executive privilege. But there is a lot of law applying the related concept of attorney-client privilege. The rationale behind both is similar: Its good for presidents to have confidential communications regarding issues of national importance and for clients to have confidential communications with their lawyers about legal issues. If such communications were easily made public, people wouldnt have them to begin with, and the quality of the privilege holders decision-making would suffer.

But if a client allows a friend to listen in on a conversation with a lawyer, theres no reason to keep it confidential anymore. The inclusion of a third party is known as a waiver. In some jurisdictions, a waiver extends to the entire subject matter of the communication not just the actual statements overheard. Its been reported that Meadows already put some of what he discussed with Trump that day in his forthcoming book. If thats true, a court might deem any privilege around those conversations waived.

5. The attorney-client privilege has an exception for communications made in furtherance of a crime or fraud. So stoking an insurrection to interfere with the peaceful transfer of presidential power should qualify for purposes of executive privilege, too. A client cant obtain a lawyers advice on where to bury a body and then hide behind the attorney-client privilege if asked about that conversation. The need for airing of evidence of a crime outweighs the clients need for confidentiality. The same exception should extend to communications with a president regarding an attempted overthrow of a legitimate election.

What many people dont seem to understand about executive privilege is that its not an insurmountable barrier to the publics right to know about presidential communications. Its merely a policy gloss on presidential prerogatives that appears nowhere in the actual Constitution. It is accordingly fickle. It is not a right, but a privilege that courts have extended to presidents out of respect for the office. Presidents who fail to show reciprocal respect for the office arguably forfeit access to its privileges.

Kimberly Wehleis a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law and author of How to Read the Constitution and Why, as well as What You Need to Know About Voting and WhyandHow to Think Like a Lawyer and Why (forthcoming February 2022). Follow her on Twitter:@kimwehle

Originally posted here:
Jan. 6: Five reasons Trump cannot hide behind executive privilege | TheHill - The Hill

The U.S. Navy and Air Force are being accused of giving blanket denials to all requests for religious exemptions from the military's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. It's happening even though there are federal laws and regulations in place to prevent such a total and outright denial of religious rights.

Just the News reports all branches of the military are required by law to evaluate religious accommodation requests (RAR's) on an individual basis to ensure due process under the Fifth Amendment and protect service members' First Amendment right to religious freedom.

The news outlet reports Vice Admiral John Nowell, deputy chief of naval operations for manpower, personnel, training, and education, created a 50-step standard operating procedure streamlining the denials of the RAR's.

But according to a formal complaint bought by an anonymous Navy officer to the chief of naval operations, the lengthy review process is just for show.

The 50-step procedure is broken down into six phases. By the fourth phase of the review, even though it's designed to provide the appearance of individual consideration of a RAR, the denial template has already been added, numerous offices have endorsed the denial, and a drafted memo to Nowell requests a denial, according to Just the News.

However, a Navy spokesman told CBN News in December there is no "blanket policy" about denying religious exemption requests. Each is allegedly considered on a case-by-case basis. There are, however, very strict guidelines that must be met, including a history of objecting to vaccinations. And anyone who refuses to get vaccinated, Christian or not, will be given a general discharge.

The Air Force has also rebuffed allegations that it has issued a standard denial for all religious exemption requests.

On Monday, the military branch told Just the News, "The Department of the AF does an individualized least restrictive means analysis for each case."

On Dec. 22, the Air Force said it has received more than 10,000 RAR requests, but also revealed in the same press release that none of the requests had been approved. More than 150 were being appealed.

"Each member's request is carefully considered to balance the government's compelling interest in mission accomplishment with the service member's sincerely held belief," Under Secretary of the Air Force Gina Ortiz Jones said. "Although the chaplain may advise the member's belief is sincere, MAJCOM and FLDCOM commanders have to balance that member's interests against the overall impact on operational readiness, health and safety of members and good order and discipline within the unit."

According to Just the News, on Dec. 3, Maj. Gen. Sharon Bannister, director of medical operations in the Department of the Air Force office of the surgeon general, went on record, telling the District Court for Middle District of Florida, "The Air Force does not apply a 'blanket' rule that no less restrictive means of protecting the force exists other than a vaccination."

"The Approval and Appeal Authority must look at numerous factors that vary by individual," she continued. "The Department of the Air Force strives to make sure full and appropriate consideration is given to each request. Where an accommodation can be granted without adversely impacting the compelling government interest in mission accomplishment, it will be."

As CBN News reported in December, a growing number of U.S. service members say the military is stripping them of their religious liberties. Many of the COVID-19 vaccination deadlines for active-duty members have passed without a single religious exemption being granted.

"It goes against my bodily sovereignty as a Christian. I mean God makes it very clear. This body that I'm given is my last bastion of freedom," one Army National Guardsman told CBN News. At the request of legal counsel, he asked not to be identified.

He says he received other vaccines from the military without doing much research. But that wasn't the case with the COVID-19 shot.

In his request for a religious exemption, he cited fetal cell lines used in the research and development phase of the mRNA vaccines and in the production of Johnson & Johnson's shot. If his request isn't granted, he says he'll take a discharge before violating his beliefs.

First Liberty Institute is representing a group of 35 Navy SEALs seeking exemptions with similar concerns.

"There are various religious objections our clients have to the vaccine. Each of them prayed earnestly for God's direction and they do not feel they can, in good faith, take this vaccine. Also, many of them object because of the documented link between this vaccine and aborted fetal cells," Attorney Mike Berry said in a statement to CBN News.

Berry argues it's unconstitutional for their requests to be denied.

"That's blatant discrimination. You can't treat religious beliefs less favorably than you treat medical conditions or administrative exemptions. Religious freedom in our country is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and that doesn't change just because you serve in the military," Berry said.

In addition, late last month, dozens of congressional lawmakers announced their support for a group of Navy SEALs who sued the Biden administration and the Defense Department for refusing to grant religious exemptions to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

"No right is more precious than the right to religious liberty," the lawmakers said in the brief addressed to U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor. "That is why the very first clause of the very First Amendment explicitly states that 'Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise' of religion."

Pentagon spokesman John Kirby told CBN News in December, religious exemptions are rare. For example, none has been granted in either the Navy or Marines in almost a decade.

"This is not about liberties it's about a military medical requirement to keep them safe, to keep their families safe, to keep their units safe and the Secretary continues to strongly believe that these vaccines are the best way to do it with respect to COVID," Kirby said

***Please sign up forCBN Newslettersand download theCBN News appto ensure you keep receiving the latest news from a distinctly Christian perspective.***

Follow this link:
These 2 US Military Branches Stand Accused of Rejecting All Religious Exemptions to Vax Mandate - CBN News

A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Monday, stopping the Department of Defense and the Biden administration from punishing U.S. Navy SEALs who object to getting the COVID-19 vaccine on the grounds of religion.

Attorneys with First Liberty Institute filed a federal lawsuit in November on behalf of 35 servicemembers. The lawsuit outlined that multiple plaintiffs have religious objections to getting immunized against COVID-19 because "the vaccines were developed, tested, or produced using aborted fetal cell lines."

Many of the SEALs have already contracted and recovered from COVID-19, while some have had antibodies tests showing that they acquired natural immunity.

In Monday's order, U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor said, "The Navy service members, in this case, seek to vindicate the very freedoms they have sacrificed so much to protect. The COVID-19 pandemic provides the government no license to abrogate those freedoms. There is no COVID-19 exception to the First Amendment. There is no military exclusion from our Constitution."

CBN News previously reported that a new directive issued by the Navy states that if a SEAL declines the vaccine, the military could attempt to recover money that the government has spent on his training.

"Forcing a service member to choose between their faith and serving their country is abhorrent to the Constitution and America's values," said Mike Berry, general counsel for First Liberty Institute. "Punishing SEALs for simply asking for a religious accommodation is purely vindictive and punitive. We're pleased that the court has acted to protect our brave warriors before more damage is done to our national security."

"After all these elite warriors have done to defend our freedoms, the Navy is now threatening their careers, families, and finances. It's appalling and it has to stop," Berry said.

The news comes as the U.S. Navy and Air Force are being accused of giving blanket denials to all requests for religious exemptions from the military's COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

All branches of the military are required by law to evaluate religious accommodation requests (RAR's) on an individual basis to ensure due process under the Fifth Amendment and protect servicemembers' First Amendment right to religious freedom.

But the Navy has reportedly created a lengthy 50-step standard operating procedure to streamline the denials of the RAR's.

A Navy spokesman told CBN News in December there is no "blanket policy" about denying religious exemption requests. Each is allegedly considered on a case-by-case basis. There are, however, very strict guidelines that must be met, including a history of objecting to vaccinations. And anyone who refuses to get vaccinated, Christian or not, will be given a general discharge.

First Liberty points out that SEALs dedicate years of their lives in training to become the most elite fighting force. Yet, the Navy is willing to oust them or force them to repay the cost of their training simply because their beliefs keep them from receiving a COVID vaccine.

Meanwhile, dozens of congressional lawmakers recently announced their support for the group of Navy SEALs, arguing that their applications for religious exemptions from the mandate were unfairly denied.

"No right is more precious than the right to religious liberty," the lawmakers said in the brief addressed to Judge O'Connor. "That is why the very first clause of the very First Amendment explicitly states that 'Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise' of religion."

***Please sign up forCBN Newslettersand download theCBN News appto ensure you keep receiving the latest news from a distinctly Christian perspective.***

See more here:
'No COVID-19 Exception to the First Amendment': Judge Sides with Navy SEALs Challenging Vaccine Mandate - CBN News

The riot at the U.S. Capitol still looms large in the minds of members of Congress who represent Virginia and Maryland.

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., was on the Senate floor on Jan. 6, when a rioting mob invaded the U.S. Capitol in an effort to disrupt certification of the 2020 presidential election.

Less than an hour before people smashed windows and spilled inside the Capitol, Warner, a Democratic lawmaker, had been looking out at the protesters and reflecting on his duty to defend the Constitution.

It wasnt long before he and other lawmakers were being rushed away from the Senate chamber to shelter in place as angry and violent demonstrators started to break past overwhelmed U.S. Capitol police officers outside.

I still think about that one Capitol Police officer who led insurrectionists away from the Senate floor, Warner said, referring to Officer Eugene Goodman.

There couldve been much more damage, much more violence, Warner said. You couldve had members of the Senate killed if those folks who were out for blood had broken onto the Senate floor with the Senate still in session.

Warner still finds it chilling that the Senate parliamentarians office, which is responsible for securing the electoral votes linked to the presidential election, was totally trashed in a way that no other office was trashed (in) the Capitol.

Warner said there are still lots of questions that need to be answered about people who were allowed to take tours of the Capitol in the days before Jan. 6, which require assistance from lawmakers.

Democrats and Republicans both condemned the attack on the Capitol many as it was happening including Rep. Rob Wittman, a GOP lawmaker who represents Virginias 1st District.

But in the months that have followed, theres been a growing divide between congressional members of the two parties.

Democrats question whether some of the insurrectionists may have received assistance or guidance from Republican House members, which GOP lawmakers have denied.

The House select committee investigating the attack recently announced it is seeking testimony from some Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, who spoke with former President Trump on Jan. 6.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said there is no question that what happened on Jan. 6 still reverberates on Capitol Hill.

What is even scarier right now is that this poison is still circulating in the political bloodstream, Van Hollen said. The poison that hit the Capitol on Jan. 6 is still very much alive in the body politic and weve got to address that as a country.

He and other lawmakers say there is a greater lack of trust between lawmakers of the two parties.

Ill confess it is harder to work with some of our colleagues that continue to promote the Big Lie, he said, referring to Republicans who continue to deny that President Joe Biden fairly won the election.

Van Hollen said those who promote false claims that former President Trump won the election are especially dangerous to our democracy.

Warner, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he believes appropriate steps have been taken to improve security at the Capitol.

But he was upset in the immediate aftermath of Jan. 6, noting he had been repeatedly assured by the FBI that appropriate steps had been taken to deal with the gathering of Trump supporters.

He and other lawmakers are encouraged by changes in intelligence sharing as well as procedures involving the activation of the National Guard.

The D.C. National Guard waited for hours as rioters fought with police officers before they were finally called in to help secure the Capitol.

Weve made additional investments, Warner said of increased funding for the Capitol Police, which includes money to hire more officers, pay for improved training and equipment.

I think its very important that we included the ability for the Capitol Police to call in the National Guard if they need additional help, God forbid something like this happens again, he said.

He said Capitol Police will continue to need improved access to intelligence related to potential threats and chatter on social media.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., agrees that important security improvements have been made.

But the Democratic lawmaker said threats remain, as long as congressional supporters of former President Trump continue to back his claim that he was cheated out of winning the election, even though there is no evidence of that.

The former president has suggested that the hundreds of people arrested have been unfairly prosecuted.

There are members of the GOP sadly, including elected members of the Senate and House, who are trying to sugarcoat and rewrite what happened that day, Kaine said.

The House select committee investigating the riot at the Capitol and what led to it plans to hold public hearings this year.

Up until now, much of the panels work has been behind closed doors. Hundreds of people have provided testimony, while some of Donald Trumps strongest supporters have refused to testify or pleaded the Fifth Amendment.

The House recently voted largely along party lines to hold former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows in contempt of Congress, for failing to answer a subpoena.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Democratic member of the select committee, said Meadows needs to answer questions related to texts he received before and during the insurrection.

Raskin of Maryland also said during a floor speech that Meadows lawsuit against the committee, which argues it has overstepped its power, is without merit.

Raskin said the Constitution gives Congress the power to suppress insurrections.

And this we will do by investigating and reporting on the most dangerous political violence ever unleashed against the Capitol by a domestic enemy, Raskin said.

Many Republicans argue that the select committee investigation is politically partisan, though the vice chair of the panel is Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo.

The committee hopes to release an interim report later this year.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-DC, said there is no getting around what happened nearly a year ago at the Capitol, even though some would like it to become a distant memory.

We still live in Jan. 6, she said.

I think try as they might, its impossible to whitewash Jan. 6, she said. It looms over us like a ghost, particularly over the Capitol.

Norton said for lawmakers to get past what happened in 2021, it will likely take years,

Were going to have to find ways, she said, and I think frankly itll take another election.

View original post here:
Jan. 6 looms over Capitol and Congress 'like a ghost' - WTOP

Happy new year!

What better way to celebrate than with predictions for the coming year?

Ill start with a prediction you werent thinking about: Ron DeSantis will lose his race for governor of Florida in November.

I see two reasons why DeSantis will lose. First, an awful lot of people have died from COVID-19 in Florida, and thousands more will die in the coming months. Its going to turn out that repeatedly saying stupid things that result in the death of your constituents is not a good political strategy. The friends and families of all those dead people will remember that DeSantis is partly to blame, and theyll hold it against him at the polls.

Couple the COVID-19 problem with DeSantiss likely abortion problem. The Supreme Court will upset the Roe applecart during the first half of this year. DeSantis is pro-life, but Florida generally tilts the other way, and this will pose a problem for DeSantis. Combine a silly response to COVID-19 with a politically untenable response to abortion, and you have the surprise of the season: DeSantis will lose his governors race, and with it any chance to be the Republican nominee for president in 2024.

What other predictions do I have up my sleeve?

My second prediction is less surprising than the first: Liz Cheney will lose her seat in the House of Representatives in November.

I have a lot of respect for Liz Cheney, and probably many elected Republicans respect her, too; they just cant say so out loud. Cheney has made her small mark in the history books by daring to suggest that inciting a crowd to attack Congress is somehow wrong.

But earning your place in the history books and earning votes in todays Republican Party are two different things.

In heavily Republican Wyoming, the person who wins the Republican primary will of course win the general election for a seat in the House of Representatives. But Cheney will not win the primary, and shell be out of office come January.

No surprises there.

Prediction number three: Trumps legal woes will catch up with him in 2022.

A lot of people have been trying to get Trump under oath for a long time: The New York attorney general, many plaintiffs in civil cases, and the like.

Its possible to stall the legal system for a while, but its not possible to block it entirely unless youre the president, which Trump no longer is. Trumps federal lawsuit seeking to prohibit the New York attorney general from deposing Trump is doomed to fail, as anyone whos read the Anti-Injunction Act would know. Trump will be forced to appear for his deposition.

But Trump would be a fool to testify to anything substantive. Hell plead the Fifth Amendment, and then hell say that he never did anything criminal. Hell say he had to plead the Fifth to evade a Democratic witch-hunt.

But thats not all!

The plaintiffs in some of the civil cases will also finally get Trump under oath. Plaintiffs counsel in those cases will know the threat that expansive testimony poses to Trump, so those lawyers will of course encourage expansive testimony.

But thats not all!

The assorted prosecutors investigating Trump will also continue to pursue him during the year. My guess is that at least one of those prosecutors will indict him.

I cant foresee the precise result of all that testimony and all those cases, but it wont be good for Trump.

Finally, COVID.

I must say: I see two possibilities for the pandemic. One possibility is that several billion people are infected with the omicron variant in the coming months. That gives the virus billions of opportunities to mutate. Naturally, it does. Something far worse than omicron emerges from these rampant infections, and were back to April 2020 all over again.

The other possibility is that omicron is in fact less severe than the original virus. Omicron infects billions of people with a less dangerous illness, and those people all develop some level of resistance to future infections. (Health care systems around the world may well be challenged while that process runs its course, but Im looking longer term than that.)

In the United States, Democrats electoral success is tied to how well Biden handles the virus. He cant let the virus run wild and so imposes every vaccine requirement that the courts will permit. The vaccination programs, coupled with the natural spread of the disease, puts the country, and the world, in a much better place by the end of the year.

Although you cant always tell from my columns at Above the Law, Im an optimist.

Im going with the second version of my COVID-19 visions, and Im predicting that the country, and the world, will be nearing the end of the COVID-19 pandemic by December 31, 2022.

And if Im wrong?

Ill be so terribly depressed that my regret for one silly prediction will be lost in the sea of melancholy.

So instead lets end on a bright note: I hope your 2022 is a happy and healthy one! Or, as someone recently said, Stay positive. Test negative.

MarkHerrmannspent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now deputy general counsel at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeons Guide to Practicing LawandDrug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy(affiliate links). You can reach him by email atinhouse@abovethelaw.com.

See the original post here:
Four Predictions For 2022 - Above the LawAbove the Law - Above the Law

A week before the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, Enrique Tarrio, the chairman of the Proud Boys, issued an unusual message to his crew. Originally launched in 2016, the Proud Boys are a violent, far-right group whose members describe themselves as Western chauvinists who refuse to apologize for creating the modern world.

In a Dec. 29, 2020, post on Parler, Tarrio called on gang members to turn out in record numbers on Jan. 6, but this time with a twist. He continued: We will not be wearing our traditional Black and Yellow. We will be incognito and we will be spread across downtown DC in smaller teams.

That same day, the head of a Florida Proud Boys chapter, Joe Biggs, issued his own Parler post highlighting the importance of blending in on Jan. 6.

You wont see us, he wrote. We are going to smell like you, move like you, and look like you. The only thing well do thats us is think like us! Jan 6th is gonna be epic.

By then, another far-right, extremist group, the Oath Keepers, was also preparing for Jan. 6. Two days before the riot, the groups founder and leader, Stewart Rhodes, posted a statement on the Oath Keepers website. It read in part:

It is CRITICAL that all patriots who can be in DC get to DC to stand tall in support of President Trumps fight to defeat the enemies foreign and domestic who are attempting a coup, through the massive vote fraud and related attacks on our Republic. [W]e will also have well armed and equipped QRF [quick reaction force] teams on standby, outside DC, in the event of a worst case scenario, where the President calls us up as part of the militia to assist him inside DC.

From Jan. 5 through Jan. 7, the Oath Keepers did, in fact, stash an arsenal of firearms and ammunition at the Comfort Inn in Ballston, Va.about a 15-minute drive from the Capitolaccording to an indictment subsequently brought by federal prosecutors.

Of the more than 700 individuals who have been charged with federal crimes stemming from the Jan. 6 Capitol Riot, only about 40 have been accused of conspiracymeaning that they are accused of planning and coordinating with others in advance to commit crimes on that date. Of the 40 conspiracy defendants, the vast majority are either Oath Keepers or Proud Boys.

These two groups appear to have played an outsized role in the events of that day, and their cases should hold particular interest for those trying to understand the causes of the insurrection. Some of these individualsmainly Proud Boysstand accused of having played crucial roles in initiating the violence that day and in getting the normies around them all riled up, as one Proud Boy later bragged of having done. Othersmainly Oath Keepersplayed semi-official roles at the rallies leading up to the riot, serving either as speakers themselves or providing security for speakers or VIPs.

Ill keep working on overall contact between Natl/congress team and stop the steal team for scheduling etc., Oath Keeper Kelly Meggs wrote, for instance, in an encrypted Oath Keeper chat channel on Signal on Jan. 4.

Twenty-one Oath Keepers (either dues-paying members or informal associates) have been charged in one indictment for, among other things, conspiring to corruptly obstruct an official proceedingnamely, the Joint Session of Congress devoted to counting the states previously certified Electoral College votes pursuant to the 12th Amendment and the Electoral Count Act. Four of these defendants have already pleaded guilty, pledging to cooperate. The remaining defendants, who have all pleaded not guilty, are set to go to trial on April 19.

The Proud Boys prosecutions are more numerous, splintered and harder to count definitivelyperhaps reflecting Tarrios instructions to remain incognito and to act in smaller teams. At least 15 Proud Boys (or their close associates) have been indicted for conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, though they have been charged in four different cases. (One of these defendants has pleaded guilty.) In addition, at least a dozen more Proud Boys or associates have been charged with serious felonies stemming from the attackincluding assaulting police officersalthough not with conspiring to commit those felonies.

The groups leadersOath Keeper founder Rhodes and Proud Boy chairman Tarriohave not been charged, though each is alluded to in an indictment as an unindicted co-conspirator. Although Rhodes was present in D.C. on Jan. 6, he remained on the lawful side of the perimeter of the Capitol grounds restricted areas that day. He allegedly did communicate with his colleagues from there by phone and text, however. (Rhodes has denied that he or any Oath Keepers sought to disrupt certification of the Electoral College results, and has told the New York Times that the Oath Keepers who entered the Capitol building did so only to render aid after hearing that someone had been shot there. But according to the governments timeline, at least 14 Oath Keepers had penetrated the building five minutes before rioter Ashli Babbitt was shot in a hallway outside the Speakers Lobby.)

Tarrio, who is from Miami, was not in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6. He arrived there Jan. 4, but was immediately arrested on charges stemming from violence after a Stop the Steal rally a month earlier. At the time of his arrest, he was found to be in felony possession of two high-capacity magazines compatible with AR-15 or M4 assault rifles. As a condition of pretrial release on Jan. 5, he was ordered to leave D.C. In July he pleaded guilty to having burned a Black Lives Matter banner vandalized from a historically Black church and to a misdemeanor charge relating to the magazines. Tarrio, who is believed to still be in custody on a five-month sentence imposed in late August, could not be reached for comment. His attorney, Lucas Dansie, declined to comment.

Although there is some evidence of coordination between at least some Oath Keepers and Proud Boys in the days leading up to Jan. 6, for the most part the groups acted in quite distinct ways that day.

The Oath Keepers, for their part, acted in an audaciously open, disciplined and military fashion as they allegedly attacked the heart and symbol of our democratic government. At about 2:39 p.m. that day, when about 14 of them allegedly helped force open the buildings Eastern doors near the Capitol Rotunda, they were decked out in full tactical gear, wearing hard-knuckled gloves, tactical vests or plate carriers, camo helmets, ballistic goggles, radios with earpieces, gaiters and boots. Certain individuals allegedly carried bear spray or a coil of paracord. The spectacle of at least 12 Oath Keepers maneuvering up the Capitol steps in stack formationeach holding the shoulder of the cadre in front of him or herbecame an indelible symbol of the insurrection. It was consistent with Rhodes repeated, months-long predictions of an imminent bloody, bloody civil-war.

The Oath Keepers case is also of special interest in that a number of these defendants were playing semi-official roles at the rallies that weekend as well as at earlier Stop the Steal rallies. At least one Oath KeeperJessica Watkinshad a VIP pass to provide security at the main rally at the Ellipse, while six others were providing security for longtime dirty trickster, convicted felon and Trump pardonee Roger Stone on Jan. 5 and 6.

Stone was not just a major promoter of the Stop the Steal movement and a key speaker at rallies on Jan. 5. He was also the original mastermind of the whole template for insurrection that played out on Jan. 6. Four years earlierin July 2016when Stone mistakenly assumed that Trump would lose his first Presidential contest against Hillary Clinton, he had laid out the entire insurrection formula in an interview on Breitbarts The Milo Yiannopoulos Show. He had observed then that a voting machine was essentially a computer and had reasoned, Who is to say they cannot be rigged? He continued:

I think we have widespread voter fraud, but the first thing that Trump needs to do is begin talking about it constantly. He needs to say for example: . . . I am leading in Florida. The polls all show it. If I lose Florida, we will know that theres voter fraud. If theres voter fraud, this election will be illegitimate, the election of the winner will be illegitimate, we will have a constitutional crisis, widespread civil disobedience, and the government will no longer be the government.

. . . I think hes gotta put them on notice that their Inauguration will be a rhetorical, and when I mean civil disobedience, not violence, but it will be a bloodbath. The government will be shut down if they attempt to steal this and swear Hillary in. No, we will not stand for it. We will not stand for it.

Turning to the Proud Boys, their role on Jan. 6 was far more furtive than the Oath Keepersbut also more violent and momentous. (Just one among the 21 accused Oath Keeper conspirators has been charged with assaulting a police officer, for instance, while many of the Proud Boys have been. The rest of the Oath Keepers are mainly charged with conspiracy, obstructing an official proceeding, impeding law enforcement officers during a civil disorder, damaging federal property and destroying evidence after the fact.)

By the time the Oath Keepers first helped the mob force its way into the east side of the Capitol at 2:39 p.m., the western side of the building had already been breached about a half hour earlier, at about 2:13 p.m. The Proud Boys had played a crucial role in accomplishing that feat, according to the government.

Moreover, as well see, there is evidence that the Proud Boys planned to storm the Capitol from before the day ever began. They were allegedly present when rioters pushed over the very first line of bike-rack barriers on the Capitols northwest side and overpowered the first set of Capitol Police officersleaving one with a concussion. Proud Boys then allegedly helped remove a second line of barriers closer to the building. They were allegedly at the forefront of those pushing up the steps beneath the Inaugural scaffolding to reach the Upper West Terrace. A Proud Boy broke out the very first window pane with a stolen riot shield at about 2:13 p.m. Over the next two minutes, at least six Proud Boys were among the first rioters to forcibly enter the Capitol building, either jumping through that broken window or walking through the door next to it, after a rioter forced it open from within.

In this article I provide an overview and timeline of whats known so far about the extraordinary roles the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys played on that historic day. It is based largely on the allegations of indictments, charging instruments and other government filings in the Proud Boys and Oath Keeper cases, but is supplemented with other publicly available source materials and media analysis. (I have also relied in some instances on allegations contained in civil suits filed against individual Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, especially those brought against certain members of those groups by Capitol Police officer Conrad Smith and seven other injured police officers and by the District of Columbia.)

At this stage, although none of the cases have gone to trial and much is yet to learn, we can make some tentative conclusions:

By May 2020, President Trump had begun laying the foundation for blaming his upcoming election loss on voter fraud. Apparently following Roger Stones template from 2016, he was alleging widespread voting fraud and talking about it constantly.

MAIL-IN VOTING VOTING WILL LEAD TO MASSIVE FRAUD AND ABUSE, he tweeted in May.

RIGGED 2020 ELECTION: MILLIONS OF MAIL-IN BALLOTS WILL BE PRINTED BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES, AND OTHERS, he tweeted in June. IT WILL BE THE SCANDAL OF OUR TIMES!

In September, Stone himself began implementing his own earlier narrative. In an interview with conspiracy theorist Alex Jones on Joness Infowars network, Stone said that ballots already cast in Nevada were completely corrupted, that we can prove voter fraud in the absentees right now and that the votes from Nevada should not be counted. Stone added that the only legitimate outcome to the 2020 election would be a Trump victory, and that Trump should consider declaring martial law or invoking the Insurrection Act.

In late October 2020, Oath Keepers founder Rhodes was also interviewed by Jones on Infowars, where he was a frequent guest. Whether by design or predisposition, Rhodes was fully onboard with the false election fraud narrative. He said that he would not recognize a Biden victory as legitimate, and that he didnt trust the electoral system any longer. He spoke of a coming civil war, expressed concern about someone staging a Benghazi-style attack on the White House on election night and urged Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act before then.

Rhodes and his Oath Keepers have always evinced a strong paranoid streak. A former Army paratrooper and 2004 Yale Law School graduate, Rhodes founded the group in 2009 after President Obama took office. The group recruits heavily among formerand even currentmilitary servicemen, police officers, firefighters and EMT personnel. Rhodes often wears an eye patch. That stems from a 1993 accident in which he dropped a loaded handgun, shooting himself in the face, according to the Atlantics Mike Giglio.

Rhodes built his organization on the premise that the U.S. government had been subverted by globalists and socialists. These enemies were not only going to try to seize Americans gunsthough that was certainly the primary fearbut also to throw them into concentration camps. Oath Keepers, therefore, take oaths to refuse to obey a list of improbable government orders including, for instance, any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps or any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps.

On Nov. 7, 2020, the networks projected that then-former Vice President Joe Biden had won the election. The event had immediate implications for both the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers.

That same day, Proud Boy chairman Tarrio posted on Parler: Standby order has been rescinded.

Tarrio was referring to the galvanizing, legitimizing event that Trump had conferred upon the Proud Boys in late September, during a Presidential debate. Asked by Chris Wallace if he would disavow white supremacists and right-wing militia like, for instance, the Proud Boys, Trump had responded:

The Proud Boys, stand back, and stand by. But I'll tell you what. I'll tell you what somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left because this is not a right-wing problem.

After the debate, Proud Boys chairman Tarrio had posted on Parler, Standing by, sir. The head of the groups Florida chapter, Joe Biggs, had posted: Trump basically said to go fuck them up. This makes me so happy. (Biggs is a retired Army staff-sergeant who served in Afghanistan. Since his medical discharge in 2012, according to his lawyer, he has suffered from combat-related PTSD, depression, and some related alcohol problems. Before joining the Proud Boys, Biggs had been a correspondent for Alex Joness Infowars, and the two men remain close, according to the New York Timess Alan Feuer.)

Two days after Bidens apparent victory, Rhodes held a virtual conference over the GoToMeeting app with at least six other high-ranking Oath Keepers, including Jessica Watkins of Ohio and Kelly Meggs and Kenneth Harrelson of Florida. (It appears to have been taped, and the government quotes from it verbatim in its Oath Keeper indictment.)

Were going to defend the president, the duly elected president, Rhodes saidreferring to Trump"and we call on him to do what needs to be done to save the country. Because if you dont, guys, youre going to be in a bloody, bloody civil war and a bloodyyou can call it an insurrection or you can call it a war or a fight.

Rhodes then called on the Oath Keepers to show up in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 14 for what became known as the Million MAGA March. He continued:

If the fight comes, let the fight come. Let Antifaif they go kinetic on us, then well go kinetic back on them. . . . If they throw bombs at us and shoot us, great, because that brings the president his reason and rationale for dropping the Insurrection Act. . . . We hope he will give us the orders. We want him to declare an insurrection, and to call us up as the militia.

Afterward, Oath Keeper Watkins began recruiting people to join the tiny local militia she had founded, called the Ohio State Regular Militia, apparently in anticipation of bringing them to D.C., too. Watkins, then 38, ran a bar called The Jolly Roger in Woodstock, Ohio. She lived in an apartment above the bar with her companion, who was also a dues-paying Oath Keeper. Watkins is an Army vet who had served in Afghanistan. (According to later representations by her attorney, she is a transgender female who was forced out of the military after her sexual orientation was discovered. After the riot, when the FBI searched Watkinss home in January 2021, agents found two bomb-making recipes in her apartment, including one for Making Plastic Explosives from Bleach and another for a pyrotechnic called thermite.)

Basic training is mandatory, Watkins texted one would-be recruit in November 2020, according to a later government filing. I need you fighting fit by innaugeration [sic]. The training would include 2 days of wargames, she explained, incorporated into larger combat training for urban warfare, riot control, and rescue operations.

Other Oath Keepers, the government alleges, had already begun combat training even before the election. Florida Oath Keepers (and now Jan. 6 defendants) Kelly Meggs, Connie Meggs (Kellys wife) and Kenneth Harrelson had taken a private combat training course in Leesburg, Fla., in September, which included training on AR-platform firearms.

In November, Oath Keeper Meggs, 52, of Dunnellon, Fla., was also recruiting. He urged others on Facebook to join him in doing shit rather than just talking on Facebook, prosecutors allege.

On Nov.10, 2020, Rhodes posted a Call to Action! on the Oath Keeper web site, which was further entitled: March on DC, Stop the Steal, Defend the President, & Defeat the Deep State. It said in part:

This election was stolen and this is a communist/Deep State coup, every bit as corrupt and illegitimate as what is done in third world banana republics. We must refuse to EVER recognize this as a legitimate election, and refuse to recognize Biden as a legitimate winner, and refuse to ever recognize him as the President of the United States. This election was stolen by corrupt, law-breaking Democrat partisans on the ground, and by the manipulation of the CIA created HAMMR (Hammer) and Scorecard programs.

HAMMR (or HAMR or Hammer) is a fictitious CIA supercomputera hoax, according to then Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency director Chris Krebsand Scorecard is the fantastical program that some conspiracy theorists imagine it runs. (Pro-Trump lawyer Sidney Powell also touted Hammer as a source of voting fraud shortly after the electionon Fox News Lou Dobbs Tonight on Nov. 6, for instancebefore she pivoted toward propagating false accusations about various voting device manufacturers, including Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic.)

Later that same day, Rhodes appeared on Alex Joness show again, where he mixed apocalyptic predictions about bloodshed to come with QAnon-like tirades about the need to expose deep-state pedophiles, including Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr.: Its either President Trump is encouraged, and bolstered, [and] strengthened to do what he must do, Rhodes said, or we wind up in a bloody fight. We all know that. The fights coming.

Several Oath Keepers attended the Million MAGA March, including Watkins and Donovan Crowl, 50, who was also a member of Watkinss militia in Ohio. Crowl is a former Marine whose later life, according to a post-riot New Yorker profile, had been marred by drinking, addiction, domestic violence and extreme overt racism. While they were in the D.C. area, Watkins and Crowl stayed at the farm of a retired Navy colonel, Tom Caldwell, of Berryville, Va., who was sympatico to the Oath Keepers objectives and worldview.

A few days after the Million MAGA March, Caldwell wrote to Crowl musing about next steps. I think there will be real violence for all of us next time, Caldwell wrote. I know its [sic] not my place but Im sure you have seen enough to know I am already working on the next D.C. op. We either WILL have a country and well be battling antifa-like bugs to keep it or we will have lost our country/freedom and we will be fighting to regain it.

Caldwell also texted Watkins a note a few days later, according to government filings:

I believe we will have to get violent to stop this, especially the antifa maggots who are sure to come out en masse even if we get the Prez for 4 more years. Stay sharp and we will meet again. You are my kinda person and we may have to fight next time. I have my own gear, I like to be ON TIME and go where the enemy is, especially after dark.

Since his post-riot arrest, Caldwells attorney has suggested in court filings that his client has a fertile imagination and likes to bluster, having once tried his hand at writing military-themed screenplays. Caldwell is 65, his attorney has noted, and is on full disability due to spinal injuries suffered while in the service. Its unlikely Caldwell could have ever effectuated many of the boasts found in his vivid emails and texts, his attorney has argued.

Still, prosecutors argue that Caldwell is dangerous. In November 2020, they stress, Caldwell ordered a double barreled, .380-calibre concealed handgun designed to look like a cellphone. In December he also emailed his Oath Keeper contacts links for weapons available on eBay, including a Zombie Killer Surgical Steel Tomahawk Axe. (The smartphone-gun did not arrive before Jan. 6, though Caldwell had written to the dealer in late December to remind him: I am eager to receive this weapon. Caldwell cancelled the still undelivered order in February, after his arrest.)

In any case, other Oath Keepers rhetoric was as apocalyptic as Caldwellsat least when it came to the prospect of a Biden Presidency. On Nov. 17, 2020 Watkins wrote to a recruit:

I don't underestimate the result of the deep state. Biden may still yet be our President. If he is, our way of life as we know it is over. Our Republic would be over. Then it is our duty as Americans to fight, kill and die for our rights. . . . If Biden get [sic] the steal, none of us have a chance in my mind. We already have our neck in the noose. They just havent kicked in the chair yet.

The Proud Boys rhetoric during this period was every bit as dire. In response to a social media post calling for unity, Proud Boy Biggs responded on Nov. 24: No bitch. This is war.

Proud Boy Ethan Nordeanan alleged member of the Proud Boys governing elders chapter and a sergeant-at-arms of its Seattle chapterissued the following post later that month, according to his indictment:

[W]e tried playing nice and by the rules, now you will deal with the monster you created. The spirit of 1776 has resurfaced and has created groups like the Proudboys and we will not be extinguished. We will grow like the flame that fuels us and spread like love that guides us. We are unstoppable, unrelenting and now unforgiving. Good luck to all you traitors of this county we so deeply love youre going to need it.

Earlier that month, Nordean had solicited militia groups in the Pacific Northwest to contact him on an encrypted social media application, according to Washington, D.C.s civil suit.

Proud Boy Zachary Rehl, the president of its Philadelphia chapter, was issuing similarly ominous warnings and threats, according to prosecutors: Hopefully the firing squads are for the traitors that are trying to steal the election from the American people, he wrote on Nov. 27, 2020. [S]ome people at the highest levels need to be made an example of with an execution or two or three.

More Stop the Steal rallies were held in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 12, two days before Presidential electors were to meet in state capitals to formalize the results of the 2020 election in their states. Speakers included Roger Stone, Proud Boy chairman Tarrio, Proud Boy elder Nordean, Oath Keeper founder Rhodes and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.

Rhodess message was, again, paranoid and unhinged. He urged Trump to release Julian Assange and put him in charge of a data dump in order to:

show the world who the traitors are, and then use the Insurrection Act to drop the hammer on them. And all us veterans who swore that oath, until youre age 65, you can be called up as the militia, to support and defend the Constitution. He needs to know from you that you are with him, that if he does not do it now, while he is commander in chief, were going to have to do it ourselves later, in a much more desperate, much more bloody war. Lets get it on now while he is still the commander in chief. At the rally, Rhodess Oath Keepers provided security for Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trumps pardoned, former national security advisor. By then, Flynn was also calling for imposition of an at least limited form of martial law, with the military seizing voting devices and running a do-over election.

On Dec. 14, when each state certified its own electoral college votes, Rhodes published a screed entitled, Open Letter to President Trump: You Must Use the Insurrection Act to Stop the Steal and Defeat the Coup:

You must act NOW as a wartime President, pursuant to your oath to defend the Constitution. . . . We are already in a fight. Its better to wage it with you as Commander-in-Chief than to have you comply with a fraudulent election, leave office, and leave the White House in the hands of illegitimate usurpers and Chinese puppets. Please dont do it. Do NOT concede, and do NOT wait until January 20, 2021. Strike now. . . . If you fail to act while you are still in office, we the people will have to fight a bloody civil war and revolution against these two illegitimate Communist Chinese puppets, and their illegitimate regime.

On Dec. 19, Trump issued perhaps the most momentous dog whistle of his career: Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election, he tweeted. Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!

Within minutes, the tweet had been pinned on the home page of TheDonald.win, a site where extremist Trump supporters congregated. One user commented there, If youve been waiting for a signal, THATS IT, according to the civil suit later filed for Capitol Police Office Conrad Smith. He cant exactly openly tell you to revolt, observed another. This is the closest hell ever get.

Later that same day, Alex Jones told his viewers that Trumps will-be-wild tweet was one of the most historic events in American history, likening it to Paul Reveres ride in 1776. In language later quoted by the House Select Committee to Investigate the Jan. 6 attack on the United States Capitol in its November 2021 cover letter to Jones subpoenaing his testimony and pertinent documents, he continued:

He is now calling on We the People to take action and show our numbers. . . . The time for games is over. The time for action is now. Ive been on the air for 27 years and Ive never reported on anything that comes as close to being this huge. This is seismic.

(Jones has vowed to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination to avoid testifying before the Committee, and has sued to block the panel from obtaining his phone records from AT&T.)

Oath Keeper Kelly Meggs was among the scores of Jan. 6 rioters now facing criminal charges who appear to have taken Trumps will-be-wild tweet as an invitation to violence. On Facebook he wrote: Trump said Its gonna be wild!!!!!!! Its gonna be wild!!!!!!! He wants us to make it WILD thats what hes saying. He called us all to the Capitol and wants us to make it wild !!! Sir Yes Sir!!! Gentleman we are heading to DC pack your shit !!

For months, the Oath Keepers had been coordinating with one another by holding virtual chat sessions over the GoToMeeting app. After the election, however, many of them stopped using their real names on those channels, and started using pseudonyms. Meggs, for instance, switched to Gator1; Ken Harrelson, to Gator6; Joseph Hackett, of Sarasota, Fla., became Ahab.

By late December, the GoToMeeting channels had taken on names like se leaders dc 1/6/21 op call and florida dc op planning chat.

Toward the end of December, the Oath Keepers set up invitation-only chat groups on the encrypted Signal app to supplement their communications. One Signal channel, used by at least 10 leadership-level Oath Keepersincluding Rhodes, Watkins and Meggswas called DC OP: Jan 6, 21. A second, Florida-centric Signal chat group, consisting of at least nine Oath Keepersincluding Meggs, Harrelson and Hackettwas called OK FL DC OP Jan 6.

Oath Keeper Hackett became particularly meticulous about secrecy during this period, according to prosecutors. When he used the Oath Keeper GoToMeeting channels, hed sign inunder his Ahab pseudonymthrough a virtual private network (VPN). Instead of placing calls or texts through his ordinary carrier, AT&T/TracFone, he used an app on his iPhone called TextMe. He then associated his Signal account with his TextMe phone number, rather than his AT&T number. His TextMe account was, in turn, registered to his encrypted Protonmail email address, which was listed under a false name, John Willow. Hackett also advised fellow Oath Keepers that when they sent plans on Signal, they should write them out longhand on a scrap of paper and then send a photo of the piece of paper. Messages in cursive to eliminate digital reads, he explained.

After Trumps will-be-wild tweet, the Oath Keepers began preparing for Jan. 6. On Christmas Day, Meggs wrote on Facebook: Dc is no guns. So mace and gas masks, some batons. If you have armor thats good.

Eventually, it was decided that firearms would be stored with a quick reaction force (QRF) just outside D.C. at the Comfort Inn in Ballston. An aging Oath Keeper named Paulreferred to as Person Three in the indictmentwas eventually chosen to watch over the arsenal there, apparently because he was too broken down to be on the ground all day, as Caldwell later put it in a text to Watkins.

At one point, as Jan. 6 approached, Caldwell and Meggs both toyed with the idea of floating the QRF arms across the Potomac to D.C. by boat, if the need arose.

Cant believe I just thought of this, Caldwell wrote to an associate affiliated with the Three Percenters on Jan. 3. (The Three Percenters are a far-right militia group premised on the false belief that only three percent of American colonists actually fought against the British during the Revolutionary War.) If we had someone standing by at a dock ramp (one near the Pentagon for sure) we could have our Quick Response Team with the heavy weapons standing by, quickly load them and ferry them across the river to our waiting arms.

Meggs had discussed a similar notion on the Oath Keepers leadership Signal chat channel on Jan. 2:1 if by land North side of Lincoln Memorial 2 if by sea Corner of west basin and Ohio [Ave.] is a water transport landing!! QRF rally points Water of [sic] the bridges get closed.

In late December, in one of the Signal chat rooms, Meggs and Rhodes also discussed the need to intimidate Congress:

Meggs: We need to make those senators very uncomfortable with all of us being a few hundred feet away. Our peaceful protests need to have a little more teeth. They arent listening. Now we arent talking about crossing the line. But we need to be standing on the line!!! Its all bad from here guys. We need Trump because it will make our jobs easier. There is gonna be blood in the streets no matter what.

Rhodes: I think Congress will screw [Trump] over. The only change [sic] we/he has is if we scare the shit out of them and convince them it will be torches and pitchforks time is [sic] they dont do the right thing. But I dont think they will listen.

As Jan. 6 approached, Alex Jones hinted that historic bombshells were afoot. On Dec. 29 he told his viewers: Now I know some incredible information that I am not at liberty to tell you. But I am at liberty to give you a hint, which I don't think is too hard. You notice Trump said, January 6th will be wild in D.C.? Well, it will be wild.

Wild rumors were circulating in right-wing circles. Many Oath Keepers were anticipating Trumps imminent invocation of the Insurrection Act:

Meggs: Trumps [sic] staying in, hes gonna use the emergency broadcast system on cell phones to broadcast to the American people. Then he will claim the insurrection act.

[Unidentified interlocutor:] Thats awesome. Any idea when?

Meggs: Next week Then wait for the 6th when we are all in DC to insurrection.

Oath Keeper Watkins texted her fellow Ohio militia member Crowl on Dec. 26: Trump wants all able bodied Patriots to come. . . . if Trump activates Insurrection Act, Id hate to miss it.

It begins for real Jan 5 and 6, wrote Caldwell on Facebook on Dec. 31, on [sic] Washington D.C. when we mobilize in thestreets [sic]. Let them try to certify some crud on capitol hill with a million or more patriots in the streets. This kettle is set to boil.In late December 2020, Kelly Meggs made several references to having struck some sort of alliance with the Proud Boys. Well, we are ready for the rioters, Meggs wrote on Facebook on Dec. 19. [T]his week I organized an alliance between Oath Keepers, Florida 3%ers, and Proud Boys. We have decided to work together to shut this shit down. He later described the Proud Boys as a force multiplier, because they always have a big group.

Still, its very unclear exactly what sort of allianceif anywas truly struck. Meggss references were vague, and seemed more targeted toward beating up Antifa in West Side Story-style rumbles than toward coordinating an attack on the Capitol. On Christmas Day, for instance, Meggs wrote on Facebook (according to a later government filing):

At night we have orchestrated a plan with the proud boys. Ive been communicating with [redacted] the leader. We are gonna March with them for a while then fall back to the back of the crowd and turn off. Then we will have the proud boys get in front of them the cops will get between Antifa and proud boys. We will come in behind antifa and beat the hell out of them.

On Dec. 29, Proud Boy chairman Tarrio issued the previously referenced order for his colleagues to remain atypically incognito on Jan. 6. That same day, the Proud Boys initiated a new leadership structure called the Ministry of Self Defense, prosecutors allege, consisting of Tarrio, Nordean, Biggs, Rehl and at least one other. To communicate, they set up an encrypted messaging channel on Telegram, called MOSD.

Chairman Tarrios Jan. 4 arrest appears to have momentarily thrown the Proud Boys plans into disarray. Apparently fearful that Tarrios phone would be searched, Proud Boy Nordean, of the Seattle chapter, took steps to nuke the MOSD communications channel and replace it with a New MOSD, according to the government. The New MOSD participants included Nordean, Biggs, Rehl and Charles Donohoe, the head of a Proud Boys chapter in North Carolina.

By that evening, however, the Proud Boys were regaining their footing. An unindicted Proud Boy co-conspirator wrote on the New MOSD channel: We had originally planned on breaking the guys into teams. Lets start divvying them up and getting baofeng channels picked out. (Baofeng is a brand of walkie-talkie type radios.)

The next day, Jan. 5, the Proud Boys created another encrypted messaging channel on Telegramwith over 60 userscalled Boots on the Ground, according to the government. In the early afternoon, Biggs used it to urge Proud Boys to stay out of trouble that day. We are trying to avoid getting into any shit tonight, he posted. Tomorrows the day. . . Just trying to get our numbers. So we can plan accordingly for tonight and tomorrows plan. Later, he reiterated, We have a plan.

On the afternoon and evening of Jan. 5, six Oath Keepers protected Roger Stone as he spoke at two rallies, according to the New York Times. They chauffeured him to and from events in a pair of golf carts.

This is nothing less than an epic struggle for the future of this country between Dark and Light, between the godly and the godless, between Good and Evil, Stone said at a rally near the White House that day, according to accounts in both the Times and Vice. And we will win this fightor America will step off into a thousand years of darkness. We dare not fail! . . . I will be with you tomorrowshoulder to shoulder!

The rest is here:
The Conspirators: The Proud Boys and Oath Keepers on Jan. 6 - Lawfare

As a professor of constitutional law for three decades, an observer of the separation of powers and civil liberties, and someone who reveres liberal democracy and hates fascism and racism, I have the motivation to fight. I have taken big bipartisan groups of incoming House members to the U.S. Holocaust Museum for a tour before their first session begins, to emphasize the essential stakes of liberal democracy. I send everyone to the National Museum of African American History and Culture and the National Museum of the American Indian to learn about the centrality of slavery, racism, and white supremacy in shaping American politics and defining the American experience.

But, now, I am driven by the memory and spirit of my lost son, who wanted far more from our democracy, not far less. He expressed dread of fascism and what it had done to humanity in the last century and horror for Nietzschean politics based only on force and fraud and the will to power, as he used to mutter every time he read the newspaper. He wanted government as the active instrument for promoting the general welfare of not just all human beings but all living beings, and he wanted morality to replace violence as the essence of government power.

I wonder where all this chaos is taking us; whether Tabitha, Hank, and Julie are safe and will be rescued soon; whether I should try to turn back and find officers; whether these insurrectionists have firearms; whether Donald Trumps allies plan to escalate the violence; whether Sarah, Hannah, and Tabithas boyfriend, Ryan, are all right; whether we are facing an insurrection, a coup, or even a civil war; whether we will finally impeach the traitor for setting loose the dogs of war upon us or perhaps invoke, at last, the unsung Twenty-Fifth Amendment; whether dear America will survive this appalling head-first descent into political madness.

I feel curiosity, anger, resolve; but there is one thing I do not feel as we travel down, down, downFaster, please hurry, an officer exhorts usinto the dark complex basement passageways of the Capitol, one thing I dont sense as we are jostled this way and shepherded that. There is one emotion I have not experienced at all on this persistently gloomy and objectively terrifying day and that I will not experience all through the night: fear.

More here:
When the Rioters Came for Us on January 6 - The New Republic

Former President Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to prevent releasing documents to the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack.

Trump requested the justices to pause a decision made by a lower court allowing the disclosure of White House records while they consider his position in the case.

"The limited interest the Committee may have in immediately obtaining the requested records pales in comparison to President Trump's interest in securing judicial review before he suffers irreparable harm," Trump's attorney, Jesse R. Binnall, wrote in a court filing.

"[Former] President Trump will suffer irreparable harm through the effective denial of a constitutional and statutory right to be fully heard on a serious disagreement between the former and incumbent President," Binnall added.

According to his lawyer, Trump stated that he was in negotiations with the White House but "abruptly stopped" them after a decision had been made to release the first tranche of documents requested.

Last week, Roger Stone, a former adviser to Trump and a Republican consultant, pleaded the Fifth Amendment for every question he was asked at a deposition with the January 6 panel.

"I did invoke my Fifth Amendment rights to every question not because I have done anything wrong but because I am fully aware of the House Democrats' long history of fabricating perjury charges on the basis of comments that are innocuous, immaterial or irrelevant," Stone told reporters on Friday.

Other Trump allies who were called to testify before the January 6 committee said that they will also invoke the Fifth Amendment. Those allies include conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, and attorney John Eastman.

The January 6 committee is seeking documents that could reveal the former president's role in attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election resultsincluding his part in the "Stop the Steal" rally held before his supporters stormed into the Capitol as lawmakers were in session.

The documents requested also include schedules, speech remarks, call logs, movement logs and events that Trump attended, his communications with former Vice President Mike Pence, and all communications within the White House on January 6, according to a court filing.

Trump also wants to block the release of a draft proclamation honoring two police officers who died during the riot and other documents related to efforts in overturning the election results and his claims of election fraud, CNN reported.

In November, the House select committee's chairman, Representative Bennie Thompson, said that the panel is seeking to know details of the events that unfolded on January 6.

"The select committee is seeking information about the rallies and subsequent march to the Capitol that escalated into a violent mob attacking the Capitol and threatening our democracy," Thompson said.

"We need to know who organized, planned, paid for, and received funds related to those events, as well as what communications organizers had with officials in the White House and Congress," he added.

Newsweek contacted Trump's office and lawyer for comments.

See the original post:
Trump Asks SCOTUS to Block Records Release to 1/6 Committee as Allies Plead the Fifth - Newsweek